Team USA’s Journey to the Round of 16: A Constitutional Victory
Thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment, Team USA has advanced to the Round of 16 at the 2026 World Cup. Leading scorer Folarin Balogun was born in July 2001 to a Nigerian-British mother who delivered him in New York City after being unable to fly back to London due to the advanced stage of her pregnancy. Although Balogun grew up in England, his birth on American soil allowed him to represent Team USA. Had the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration’s recent challenges to birthright citizenship, Balogun would not have been recognized as a U.S. citizen. Fortunately, on June 30, the Court upheld the constitutional guarantee of citizenship as enshrined in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. Barbara came nearly 18 months after President Trump’s executive order aimed at denying birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants and those temporarily residing in the United States. Courts across the country had unanimously deemed the order unconstitutional. Last year, the Supreme Court opted to avoid a direct ruling on the legality of executive orders, instead focusing on the ability of lower courts to issue “universal” injunctions. The delay in confirming the meaning of the Constitution allowed contentious interpretations to seep into a well-established constitutional guarantee upheld for over 125 years. Ultimately, the Court reached the correct decision, albeit by a narrow margin.
Majority Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion that nullified the executive order, with six justices—including Barrett, Kavanaugh, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson—agreeing on its illegality. However, only five justices deemed the order unconstitutional. In a separate commentary, Justice Kavanaugh argued that while the executive order violated federal law and could be amended by Congress, it should not be classified as unconstitutional. Many believe this Court will likely resist any restrictive interpretations of citizenship that would exclude children like those affected by the executive order.
A Historical Perspective on Birthright Citizenship
In his lead opinion, Chief Justice Roberts traced the evolution of birthright citizenship from English common law through to the founding of the United States. He emphasized that, barring a few exceptions, those born on U.S. soil are entitled to citizenship. One notable exception was the infamous 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling, which denied citizenship to enslaved Americans and their descendants. The Barbara Court reiterated that, under Dred Scott, “blood, not dirt, ruled.”
Congressional Intent and the Fourteenth Amendment
The aftermath of the Civil War and the ambitions of Reconstruction led to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Chief Justice Roberts underscored that the amendment was crafted to unequivocally enshrine civil rights, free from congressional whims. This understanding has been upheld for over a century, notably in the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, which asserted that nearly every child born in the U.S. is entitled to citizenship.
Competing Visions of the Fourteenth Amendment
Justice Thomas penned a lengthy dissent, joined by Justice Gorsuch. While both the majority and dissenting opinions recognized the Fourteenth Amendment’s intent to rectify the injustices highlighted in Dred Scott, their interpretations diverged significantly. Justice Thomas argued that the Fourteenth Amendment was repurposed for political aims that did not align with the Reconstruction Congress’s original intent. He posited that the text requires “domicile” or permanent residency, a notion absent from the amendment itself.
Dissenting Opinions and Broader Implications
Justice Jackson countered Justice Thomas’s narrow interpretation, arguing that it disregards the broader goals of the Reconstruction Amendments. She stated that the Fourteenth Amendment represents an anti-caste, anti-subordination reinvention of the nation, not merely a remedy for slavery’s legacy. Additionally, Justice Alito voiced concerns regarding “birth tourism” in his dissent, while Justice Gorsuch hinted that children of undocumented immigrants might be considered “residing” in the U.S. under certain circumstances.
The Broader Debate on Citizenship and Immigration
The majority and dissenting opinions reflect fundamentally different perspectives on American citizenship. Opponents argue that granting citizenship to children of those in the country illegally diminishes the value of U.S. citizenship. In contrast, the majority warns that any attempt to dilute birthright citizenship undermines the essence of the Fourteenth Amendment and its role in shaping the nation today. Balogun’s story highlights the potential dangers of crafting laws based on exceptional cases, but it also emphasizes the need to uphold fundamental constitutional guarantees. The recent ruling affirms that being born in the U.S. confers citizenship automatically, reinforcing a critical aspect of American identity.
